Comments on: Where are the Sasquatch Snow Tracks?http://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sasquatch-snow-tracks/
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and MoreTue, 31 Mar 2015 01:31:16 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1By: NMRNGhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sasquatch-snow-tracks/comment-page-1/#comment-91138
Wed, 07 Aug 2013 20:45:40 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=67963#comment-91138Interesting. After nearly two weeks, no one has bothered to respond. Surely at least a few people subscribed to this thread? It’s hard to believe that everyone who participated at length here was following the thread only as long as it was on the website’s front or second page.

I checked out the three videos posted above. The first two were essentially worthless because of lack of resolution and clarity – the first looked to me to be a guy-in-a-gorilla-suit hoax and the second likely showed a person goofing around in the snow on top of the hill. Most of the bigfoot in the snow videos have to be hoaxes because there’s no follow-up. Every genuine bigfoot captured on video would be followed up by the videographer walking up to the site of the video capture and getting close-ups of the footprints. None of those videos do that. The third video, that of the bigfoot trackway in the deep snow of northern Minnesota was much more convincing. The “I can’t walk without dragging my feet through this deep snow” commentary and demonstration could have been exaggerated and it’s possible the tracks were by someone wearing smaller snowshoes, but the stride length did appear to be longer than what a person could typically produce in deep snow, without drag marks through the snow from one footprint to the next.

Speaking of what was shown in that video, PhotoExpert, did you happen to watch that bigfoot trackway video? What did you see in the background? Two things: woods, and snowmobiles. The people in the video saw the tracks while out snowmobiling through the woods. I don’t have the specific figures for what portion of snowmobile trails are in the open versus through the woods, but I would hazard a conservative guess that at least 30% of snowmobile trails are in the woods or immediately alongside wooded areas and it could easily be double that figure based on the hundreds of miles of snowmobile trails I’ve seen from roads or highways in Wisconsin and in Minnesota or that I’ve hiked in the summer and fall that are marked with snowmobile signs for the winter. There are over 25,000 miles of snowmobile trails in my state of Wisconsin alone, so you’ve got to figure that with the other northern states and pretty much all of Canada combined, there has to be more than a HUNDRED THOUSAND miles of snowmobile trails through the woods of North America. So yes, snowmobilers are out in bigfoot habitat.

Also, while I’ve never been to Yosemite in the winter, I have been to Yellowstone in late December and there were hundreds of tourists there, skiing, snowmobiling, taking snow cat tours, etc… and I imagine it would be the same at many other large parks. So PE, your ignorance is starting to show, rather badly. Looking back, I see it was you who made the ridiculous comments about the ski hills as well. I couldn’t tell from a comment above, but are you from Australia or someplace like Florida, where there isn’t much if any snow? That at least would partially excuse your ignorance. You’re an odd duck – you’re quick to point out the obvious when there’s a too frequent implausible account here of some alleged cryptic sighting, but when I raise a questions about a genuine issue, you immediately reject it as the work of a troll, citing spurious and erroneous reasons for jumping to that conclusion.

As for your statement that one finds sasquatch only in wooded, remote habitat, well, there is plenty of that in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, particularly in the mountainous regions that cover most of those three states, yet there are more sasquatch sightings reported in flat, relatively featureless farm-and-ranchland prevalent Nebraska than in those three states, double the number of sightings in Iowa compared to those three states combined, and nearly triple the number of sightings in Oklahoma as one finds in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine combined. (source: BFRO.net). Why? Clearly trees and remote hills alone do not provide the answer.

Are there photos and videos of alleged tracks in the snow posted online? Sure. And like the bulk of them taken during the other three seasons of the year, they are generally at best inconclusive and much more typically, hoaxes. Other than the Bossburg prints and the example from the 1980s someone cited above, where else has any bigfoot author mentioned any bigfoot tracks in the snow in more recent times, let alone over the last two decades? Has there even been a single mention in the written literature of bigfoot tracks in the snow since 2000? I’m not aware of any, but I haven’t read that many books. OK, so let’s put together a list of all of the television episodes of people studying bigfoot who thought to cover tracks in the snow – I’ll list all of the episodes of Finding Bigfoot, Monsterquest, Animal X, Destination Truth (maybe – I stopped watching it after the second season because it was so awful), Nat Geo specials, etc.. that cover Bigfoot in the winter:

That’s right, zero. There was one episode of Finding Bigfoot where they fly in a helicopter to the top of a snow-covered mountain where someone shot a distant photo of a skier who hiked to the top of the next peak over and they misidentified this figure as a bigfoot, but they did not mention tracks or address the topic of sasquatch in the winter. None of the shows about this cryptid have ever covered sasquatch in the wintertime (to the best of my knowledge – please correct me if I’m wrong). I would say that between the written and televised media (i.e. the most credible portion of the recordings of the study of sasquatch), that’s a significant gap in coverage, one worthy of my original inquiry.

PhotoExpert, you flippantly dismissed my inquiry with a speculative response about migration (and someone else suggested it in a non-flippant fashion). Let’s suppose sasquatches do migrate south in the winter. Where do they go? Are they hiking hundreds or thousands of miles to the southern third of our country? How about the ones spotted in Alaska and further north in Canada? Are they going 2,000 miles or more south? Do they really need to? Virtually all reports of sasquatch close enough to see the beast’s coat report it is thick and at least medium length, tending more toward several inches in length, not the sort of thin coat that would be inadequate for colder weather. Sasquatches allegedly live in many of the same part of North America as the gray wolf. Wolves tend not to migrate during the winter – they may follow caribou herds when that is their primary local pray, but the wolves living in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan don’t flee the snow every winter and their usual prey essentially stays put when the snow falls.

If sasquatch migrates, wouldn’t the incidents of sightings of roadway crossings be greatly increased in November and late March to Early April? Is there any such statistic that would prove this? I haven’t heard of it and that seems like it would be something I would investigate if I dedicated a significant portion of my life to studying this legendary beast. But no one else seems to be asking these sorts of questions. Wildlife biologists who study caribou and wildebeests and other such migratory mammals surely study patterns of movement, but I’ve never heard of any of the handful of more serious bigfoot investigators out there considering this migratory theory.

And let’s say that sasquatch does move south – the Minnesota ones head down to the Ozarks, for instance and the Michigan ones head to Kentucky or Tennessee. One would have to assume that the number of sightings in these states would be higher in the winter than in other times of the year (when not only the population has increased from the migrations south, but there’s less leaf cover behind which an 8′ tall mammal can hide), but that’s not the case, per the state sightings reports on BFRO.net. And since there are sightings year-round in these states, that would suggest a resident population. What predatory mammalian species, man included, has ever welcomed competitors into its territory in the history of our planet? Sorry, but I don’t buy southern sasquatches welcoming their northern kin “Hey! There’s Uncle Aaaarghnnahaahooo and Auntie Neeenugnog! We’ve been expecting you for days! Make yourselves at home – we’ve got plenty of food.” As far as I know, no one’s ever reported any sasquatch fights and territorial conflicts, but there would have to be some if northern sasquatches migrated south – ALL predatory mammals defend their hunting territories. To me, the migration theory is not impossible, but it’s not very plausible, either.

PhotoExpert, you asked if I’ve read Loren Coleman. Yes, I have. It may be almost sacrilegious to say this here on a site where he was a founder (I have no knowledge of his exact role in starting and leaving this site), but I thought his Bigfoot: The True Story of Apes In America had a decent portion on the Native American traditions and legends, it had some OK original research material he conducted, but was otherwise rather poorly written, very poorly edited, and it was biased and amateurish, clearly the product of a bigfoot believer, not an objective study of the creature. For specifics, see my review on Amazon – it’s the lengthy 2/5 star review, the only one that gives specific examples and page numbers for each of the many problems with the book. Coleman’s prominence in the field over multiple decades should not give his ideas and theories any more credibility than they are worth based on their objective merits without regard to who came up with that theory.

There are some long-time regulars who posted above back in June who casually dismissed my inquiries, but they did not do much more than put casual thought into rejecting the points I made and questions I asked. Asking “What does it do and where does it go?” are not dumb questions to ask about any living species. And so far, my suspicions appear to be correct, that other than discussion of a few decades-old reports, there is virtually no mention in the most reliable portion of the sasquatch media (i.e. in books and television shows on sasquatch**) of what bigfoot does in the winter and why there aren’t more tracks. And no one has answered that rather pertinent question: when 90+% of its tracks are going to be visible on snow-covered ground (as opposed to what, 1 to maybe 10% of its tracks in non-winter months), why has no one tracked down a sasquatch in the snow? These are valid questions, ones that are intended to shed genuine light on this subject. I’m asking questions that should be addressed in books and shows about sasquatch, if those who were investigating this cryptid were doing a thorough, comprehensive, and objective job. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be doing that.

People should be asking hard questions and addressing problems with the bigfoot theories, not sweeping them under the rug. I understand that Jeff Meldrum is himself loath to admit that he’s been conned by hoaxers in the past and he does not adequately acknowledge the role of hoaxers in tainting the quantity of sasquatch evidence out there; at least he didn’t in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (and I thought very highly of that book, but not so much so that I could not assess it objectively). People should be asking about seeming inconsistencies in what is reported about sasquatch. Washington and California (the mountainous northern portion of the state) lead the country in sasquatch sightings. But why is it that there are more sightings in Ohio, Illinois, and Florida, than there are in the state that sits between California and Washington – Oregon? (source: BFRO.net).

The bottom line is that I’m not trying to be some sort of obnoxious miscreant who delights in making conflict on an internet site. I’m merely asking hard questions about issues that the small handful of professional and semi-professional sasquatch researchers out there should be asking and addressing, but seem to be avoiding. That does not make me a troll.

======================

** I am, by no means, calling the television shows on sasquatch and other cryptids universally reliable sources. Destination Truth is hosted by a bombastic assclown and is as amateurish as any documentary-style show I’ve ever seen. Animal X wasn’t much better. Even Finding Bigfoot is at least as much entertainment as it attempts to portray any sort of genuine research. However, these shows often do feature people who take the subject more seriously, such as Dr. Meldrum and Loren Coleman and they have a greater overall reliability than what one finds on YouTube.

]]>By: NMRNGhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sasquatch-snow-tracks/comment-page-1/#comment-90788
Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:58:22 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=67963#comment-90788Wow. I guess I picked a bad time to take a 5-week break from visiting this site – I’ve had a very busy summer and have had little time for this website. I also had no clue that my inquiry would get posted here as a topic for discussion, otherwise I would have participated when it first came out. Sorry to say this PhotoExpert, but your exceedingly sharp and perceptive wit and intellect did not drive me from the site – having a very full work, family, and personal life, with two lengthy vacations away from the internet thus far this summer, were what kept me from returning to this website and becoming aware of this comment thread (also, I confess, Finding Bigfoot is in the off-season, so out of sight, out of mind). Those factors are what prevented me from responding. In fact, ignorant of this thread’s existence at that time, I posted something about the lack of winter evidence in the Where’s the Poop!? article earlier today.

Let me assure every person who got up in arms about my inquiry, as well as my participation in this website, that I am not a troll, have never trolled on any website, and I’m terribly sorry to say this, but I’m not even the skeptic, militant or otherwise, that I have been characterized to be. I think that the combination of Native American traditions, the several reports from the late 18th and 19th centuries newspapers of sightings and even shootings of a “Wildman” like monster, the thousands of eyewitness sightings, the hundreds of footprint sightings, plus the recent scientific analysis of the PG film concluding the technology did not exist in 1967 to do such a hoaxed film, all leave me much more convinced than not that there is a large bipedal ape running around North America. I do not believe that all of the evidence can be adequately explained by either misidentification or hoaxers – the quantity of the former seems to exceed the numbers of the latter. Did all of you scoffing at me notice the following sentence in my initial inquiry: “But it really seems that the quantify of evidence proving the existence of sasquatch is too great to be explained adequately by the combination of hoaxes and misidentification”? Sorry, but I really hate it when people do a lazy, half-*ssed job of reading what I wrote and then misinterpret and mischaracterize my words.

So I wouldn’t call myself a skeptic, but I’m no gullible “true believer” either. I do not accept blindly that which is not adequately substantiated. I like to see a theory defended with proof and I like to see both the pros and the cons candidly addressed. Unfortunately, I would have to say that the majority of those who are involved in the study of bigfoot (as careers out in the field or from the amateur’s armchair or something in between) are vocal about the positive proof and tend to silently avoid addressing questions about the non-existence of the beast. Evidence should be questioned. Lack of evidence should be addressed – that is the process of proving anything in the scientific and legal communities. Evidence should be set forth with supporting citations. Unfortunately we don’t have that anywhere that I’ve seen in my readings in the bigfoot community. Even Meldrum’s excellent Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science does not contain a single footnote or endnote providing a source for his assertions and that lowers Dr. Jeff’s credibility somewhat in my eyes; the book is clearly intended for those outside of the scientific community. Other books, such as Loren Coleman’s Bigfoot! are much worse and I found that Coleman takes serious efforts to avoid addressing any issues that call into question his assertions or that cast a doubtful light on any of the various stories and accounts he included in that book. Not to mention Bobo Fay, who will believe virtually any story whatsoever and pronounce, “Yep, I have no doubt in my mind – he saw a squatch!”

So I’m an exacting person who wants to see proof and I want to see both the pros and the cons addressed for whatever proof of a cryptid’s existence is submitted. I suppose I am also less tolerant than most of the questionable accounts and the shoddy I’ll-report-anything-no-matter-how-implausible style of investigating and writing about cryptids that one too frequently finds in this field. When wackos and crackpots are featured and given some credence, it has a negative impact on the study as a whole, because those who are not knowledgeable or who are inclined to doubt will make snap judgments that the entire field of cryptozoology is nothing but frauds, fools, and fairy tales. That is why I have come down harshly on this site and elsewhere against known hoaxers such as Rick Dyer and against gullible individuals like Christopher Noel who believe in Dyer and in catlady hermits who claim to talk telepathically with her neighboring sasquatch friend or anyone talking about a bigfoot-UFO connection. Giving any weight or attention to the weak and farfetched accounts has a negative impact on the study as a whole. In one of the television specials on bigfoot, the producers interviewed a crusty old graybearded anthropology professor from the University of Chicago who commented vaguely about how the PG film was an obvious hoax but had no specifics to support his sneers of contempt. Giving credence to the implausible claims only feeds fuel to the fires of such skeptical old goats.

So the reason I posted the inquiry about wintertime bigfoot proof isn’t to be a horse’s *ss or make fun of anyone, it was to address a serious lack of proof in the written literature (or at least from what I’ve so far read) about the issue of what happens to sasquatch in the winter and why aren’t we seeing more proof of it then, when most footsteps will leave a visible record, rather than the minority of them we occasionally find in the non-snowy ground. If I recall correctly, both Meldrum and Coleman do discuss the “crippled” Bossburg tracks in the snow, but neither of them mention any other proof of footprints in the snow and neither of them discuss what exactly they believe our secretive primate cousins do during the period between fall and springtime. Nor have any of the Finding Bigfoot episodes or any of the other television shows of greater or lesser scientific or entertainment focuses shown proof of sasquatch in the winter, and I’ve seen most of those shows.

I am not familiar with specifics of reports on the websites of the BFRO or other similar organizations, so I do appreciate the link to the prints this winter in Michigan. As for videos on Youtube, well, one could spend a lifetime looking at nothing other than hoaxed videos on that site – it’s too hard to separate out the wheat from the much more numerous chaff produced by the attention-seeking dolts who unfortunately seem to have large populations on that website. So when I say that there’s little proof of bigfoot in the winter, I’m talking primarily about the printed media on the topic.

A number of the people who have addressed my questions have done little other than repeat the points I already conceded in my initial inquiry. I’ll address some other points and issues, though.

– I believe I spoke erroneously when referring to nocturnal and hibernating primates – I really meant to say apes, not just all primates.

– It seems that most people who are talking about diminished numbers of people in the outdoors during the wintertime really don’t understand that there are two categories of outdoors people: sporty naturalists (i.e. those who like to hike, bike, canoe, backpack, etc…) and hunters. When I lived on the East Coast I had no good idea of how big of a sport hunting was and how many millions of people are outside hunting every late fall and winter in the less densely populates states, until I moved to the upper Midwest nearly two decades ago. So while the numbers in the remote areas of sporty naturalists wearing their latest North Face and Marmot gear from REI are down in the colder months, the numbers of hunters wearing RealTree camo from Cabelas is up very high. Hunters do like to get out beyond the close, local areas. And unlike a typical hiker/backpacker, for the 95+% of hunters who are serious about their sport and who aren’t nipping from a hip flask, they ARE looking at tracks on the ground, looking very carefully at them, trying to spot those larger ones that might indicate a big buck, or multiple human tracks that might indicate that an area has already been hunted and the game spooked.

– Although people aren’t going into the really high country in the winter, it makes sense that there aren’t any sasquatches there, either, since there are no food sources for them. There’s little or no vegetation under the deep mountain snow, most of the smaller animals will be under the snow as well, and their larger prey have all gone down to the lower elevations where they can find more vegetation, bark, etc… to eat. In any event, if one takes seriously the claims of the habituator element of sasquatch believers, there are plenty of sasquatches roaming around the not-so-remote countryside.

– When I was talking about skiers, I obviously wasn’t talking about downhill skiers. What an asinine suggestion – I clearly was not referring to the lack of bigfoot sightings at Aspen or Sun Valley. I was talking about cross country and back country skiers (and snowshoers, too). In fact, if whoever came up with that comment about ski resorts had bothered to read what I wrote, he/she would have seen that I expressly said “backwoods skiers.”

– As to the figures I used in my guestimate, well, I took the population of 2,000 from Coleman’s book Bigfoot! and that seemed to me, as a layperson at least, to be the very smallest possible number that would sustain a breeding population of a large mammal that has such a widespread range. No one has any clue of how many sasquatches there may or may not be out there in the wild – we’ve had people responding to my numbers here as both significantly too low and significantly too high. If that 2,000 figure is low by even a factor of 50%, well, that just means that there probably a billion footprints out there every winter, not half a billion. So even with all of the winds shifting, warm days melting, subsequent snowstorms, etc…, there still should be a very large quantity of footprints out and about in the woods.

– I can see a large, intelligent primate sticking to harder ground and hopping from rock to rock to avoid leaving tracks during the warmer months. But if there’s a foot of snow on the ground, what then? Sorry, but I don’t buy the idea of bigfoot walking backwards all winter long wiping out his tracks with a pine bough.

So to conclude, my inquiry was a serious one addressing a topic that I’ve not seen mentioned here or elsewhere. I thank Craig for posting it here and I only wish he had sent me a PM or e-mail letting me know about it, so that I didn’t end up showing up weeks late, seemingly a troll who abandoned the website after stirring up the pot a bit. I also thank Joxman and the several others who took me seriously rather than do that thing that website old-timers seem to like to do, disparage and pound on the newbie. I’m no authority on all the sasquatch materials available online (and I haven’t read all the books, either) and I do appreciate the links and suggestions. I did end up sending Jeff Meldrum an e-mail to his ISU e-mail address setting forth almost verbatim all of the points I made above and he never responded. Perhaps that can be explained by the fact that he certainly receives more e-mails than he can respond to and address. Or maybe he just didn’t have an answer.

It seems to me, though, that the best time of year to obtain proof of sasquatch would be the winter time, when the potential exists to track a bigfoot all the way back to its lair or den – a repeat sleeping spot should have plentiful hair samples available to obtain that credible DNA proof that so far seems to have escaped researchers. And it seems to me that this idea hasn’t occurred to those who actually are involved out in the field or if it has, they aren’t saying much about it.

P.S. PhotoExpert, I suggest you find your local EENT specialist and get that highly adapted nose of yours, the one you boasted about in so many paragraphs above, checked out, as its vaunted sensitivity and skills seem to be completely on the fritz. Quite frankly, I don’t think I’ve ever been as wrong about anything before as your lengthy diatribe was about me. Perhaps someone out there can suggest a suitable poultry sauce for you to have to accompany the big dish of crow upon which you will be feasting.

Some figures I’ve seen suggest there are a total of about 250,000 species represented in the fossil record, or less than 5% of the number of known living species and far less than 1% of all the species that have likely lived throughout history.

Last time I counted, the South American monkeys has 5 families, 19 genera and some 140 species plus another 70 subspecies. Of those, only 2 of the living families are represented in the fossil record and while none of the living genera or species are represented.

The point I was making was a general point about a skeptical tendency I find objectionable, for which you highlighted a handy riposte. Maybe I should have explicitly stated that, but dealing with bigfoot skeptics has made me a bit of a smart aleck.

I agree with you. There is no logical reason to believe that sasquatch aren’t nocturnal if first, a high percentage of sightings are at night and second, many if not most of those witnesses are noting an adaptation of nocturnal animals that some primates share. (And of course many many people see them, period; their descriptions are ridiculously consistent for something that isn’t real; they leave tracks for which no other natural or artificial agent can be reasonably postulated, etc. etc. etc. etc.)

Too many people base assumptions about primates on a fossil record that is 5 percent complete. The dates at which we estimate divergence of primate lineage are what smart bookmakers call, correctly, “guesses.”

Insanity, last comment. Your prime example of a nocturnal primate is a New World monkey. That primate line split not just from apes but also from all the Old World monkeys like baboons over 40mya which was when grasses first appeared on earth. Again, do you have no concept of time? Or of probability?

Again, if you believe bigfoot is real and that it is part of the ape lineage, all anecdotes and eyewitness testimony should be taken with a huge caveat emptor.

“gorillas and chimpanzees are known to have some activity at night.”

Well I get up in the middle of the night to piss. So do I also count as a nocturnal animal?

]]>By: Insanityhttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sasquatch-snow-tracks/comment-page-1/#comment-89228
Fri, 14 Jun 2013 17:40:30 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=67963#comment-89228I don’t believe I was using fossil evidence in any way against a living species.

Really I was pondering how long it may take a nocturnal primate species to evolve from a diurnal species.

If the night monkeys did evolve from diurnal ancestors as thought, I was asking the question as to how long it may have taken them to do so. Unfortunately we do not know the answer as the Aotus genus does not appear in South America’s fossil record. They may have evolved 5mya, 10mya or 20mya or more, we don’t know. The New World monkey divergence occurred some 40mya, and if we had some fossils of Aotus that were dated to 30mya, then we could reasonably say it took, for at least the Aotus genus, ~10million years to evolve to a nocturnality lifestyle. However, as there is no current fossil record of them, we do not know.

I was not stating in any fashion that the lack of fossil evidence discredits the possible existence of Sasquatch or any living species. The fossil record is fickle and many living species do not appear in the record, and it in reality it contains such a small fraction of a percent of all the species throughout history. Using the fossil record in any way to predict or state what species could be alive today is flawed.

“How long did it take for night monkeys to evolve these changes? We really do not know as South America has an extremely short primate fossil record with only 10 species described, and none of the current living species have any representation in the South American fossil record.”

Oh.

Behold the perils of using fossil evidence as one’s argument against living species being reported by current people. If people are saying that something is alive, and nocturnal, and oh by the way making scads of reported – and that’s just reported – tracks in snow, did we mention that?, then it’s irrelevant whether we have fossil evidence of this alleged animal, for two reasons: (1) dammit, if it’s real it’s as real as any SA monkey, and we see the case with them, right? and (2) how can you use fossil evidence as your case when no specimen of the alleged animal has been examined yet to ascertain the very characters that allow that determination?

I keep asking bigfoot skeptics to be logical. But it’s an uphill slog.

I am well aware that the species mentioned diverged prior to the Old World monkey and ape divergence.

The point behind it is that with those nocturnal species that diverged early in primate evolution, such as the prosimians, either independently evolved nocturnality or that this trait was retained from the earlier nocturnal primate species. It was not to suggest that Sasquatch could be a descendent from any of them.

While a nocturnal lifestyle is associated with the ‘primitive’ primates like prosimians, with the night monkeys, being the only nocturnal New World monkey, they are thought to have re-evolved nocturnality from diurnal ancestors. We really do not know which lifestyle evolved first among primates, diurnality or nocturnality, and more recent thought is that the earliest primates may have been diurnal and later evolved nocturnality.

The only real evolutionary changes needed to adopt a nocturnal lifestyle are the eyes. How long did it take for night monkeys to evolve these changes? We really do not know as South America has an extremely short primate fossil record with only 10 species described, and none of the current living species have any representation in the South American fossil record.

It seems certain that nocturnality evolved several times in primate history, and either had re-evolved independently throughout history or was retained from previous nocturnal ancestors. I don’t think we really know what the case is with the known living nocturnal species with a possible exception of the night monkeys.

As night monkeys seem certainly capable of re-evolving nocturnality from diurnal ancestors, what is there to prevent the same occurring for an ape species? Can we eliminate the possibility of an ape species evolving a nocturnal lifestyle just simply on the basis that it would be a contrast from the other living apes, while such a contrast already exists with the night monkeys and New World monkeys? If Sasquatch does exist, and turns out to be the only primarily nocturnal ape, would it really be greater contrast than the only nocturnal New World monkey?

“Additionally, no ape species from that last ape/monkey split has been thought to be diurnal, nocturnal, crepuscular or “cathemeral.””

I think this shows that either you are unfamiliar with the terms, didn’t bother to look them up or simply made a mistake as diurnal describes activity during the day, which is the primary lifestyle of many apes. Even so, as I mentioned previously regarding animals being strictly diurnal or nocturnal, gorillas and chimpanzees are known to have some activity at night.

]]>By: PhotoExperthttp://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/sasquatch-snow-tracks/comment-page-1/#comment-89200
Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:56:30 +0000http://cryptomundo.com/?p=67963#comment-89200Joxman2k–Don’t worry, I will not bury you with my sardonic wit. Psst, what is sardonic wit? LOL I will let you be as I have become soft in my old age. But I will attempt to answer your question because I feel it is an honest one and that you were truly just making an observation.

I am assuming you are relatively new to Cryptomundo. So just to let you know, I have been here a long time. And I do read every single post here. Over time, I get to know the posters by what they post and how they post. I can spot a militant sceptic a mile away, after reading several of their posts over time. A pattern always imerges that I can identify. I’m not going to tell you each and every detail as they will become weary. And I enjoy calling them out as they try to hide their true beliefs. But I will give you some of my indicators that helps me identify them.

I took note of the poster NMRNG after a couple of his or her posts. You have to have a nose for this kind of stuff. His first couple of posts were harmless enough. In fact, they were objective. No harm, no foul! Almost every new poster has harmless first posts as they test the waters. But a militant sceptic, as soon as they get use to the temperature of the water, they will start posting with this passive-aggressive style. Quickly it escalates to acting like they want to be a believer but just have a few more innocent questions. When I see those questions, following the pattern I previously laid out for you, I can identify that poster as a probable militant sceptic. NMRNG began to follow that pattern. I immediately call them out when I see them, to alert others, as not to be fooled by this charade. There is this sarcasm that militant sceptics can not control and it eeks out from their pores, unintentionally. Just enough for me to get a whiff and identify them as a probable militant sceptic. Then I take that same water that they have gotten use to and a hold their heads under it for a while as I call them out. I guess you can tell from all the others in various threads, agreeing and rooting me on for doing so, that it is second nature for me and appreciated by most posters here. Well, appreciated by most posters just not the militant sceptics I drown in what they thought was comfortable waters to proceed with their game.

So that is what I did. To the layman, or newbie, such as yourself, it looks like I came out of left field and starting verbally berating the poster. I assure you that is not the case. See, unlike you or others, you never noticed NMRNG’s first posts. You were not following him as I have followed him. And since you are probably a newbie or at least a newbie to posting here, you would not know that. That is why I led off easy with him, copying his passive aggressive behavior and giving him a dose of his own medicine until I could decide if I needed to hold his head under the water. But I am not totally convinced at this point that he is a militant sceptic. As I stated in my post, he could just be having a bad day and deviated from his normal posting style. A few more indicators need to pop up for me before I actually declare him a militant sceptic.

But I catch them all the time. And when I do, I call them out immediately. I have not got one incorrectly pegged yet! How’s that for a track record? I let that speak for itself.

Now, let me make a prediction, based on the past behavior of militant sceptics. They will do one of several things. The smart ones will never reply to my post. They realize the gig is up and they can not hide their religion and belief in scepticism. And you can see that NMRNG never replied directly to my post. The dumber ones, will act as if they did not read my post and come back innocently in another thread on a new topic and post some benign crap, as not to draw attention to themselves. I will engage them even though the post is benign because I know their modus operandi. And the really smart ones, will never post again because they know I will remember their name and call them out for what they are. The most stubborn and stupid ones will engage me and then it is time for me to drown them and put them out of their misery.

So the poster was not asking innocent questions in my honest assessment. The pattern of behavior followed the normal course I would expect it to follow for a militant sceptic. And I wasted no time in calling him out immediately and pointing out his deviation in posting style and the questions he asked. That is why you see Goodfoot and DWA agreeing with my posting and Goodfoot making the comment about how I was SWEET to this guy. Because regular posters here know, I was calling him out for what they saw him as too–as a probable militant sceptic.

Granted, I did not call him a militant sceptic. I simply implied that he might be having a bad day and from his earlier posts, he seemed to be objective. Time will ultimately tell. I will be here to witness that pattern or if he returns to the camp of objectivity where he began his posting.

But do not worry Joxman2k, as you see, I did not decimate you. I could tell you were just making an observation from a more naive frame of reference. Not a problem! Hopefully, I explained myself well enough to see where I am coming from. Welcome to Cryptomundo! Thank you for questioning me directly and speaking your mind. I definitely respect that and admire that in a person. And I look forward to seeing your future postings here!